zlacker

>>ortusd+(OP)
so... what did people expect? Also, people who buy 17,000$ Apple Watch have probably moved to a different model long time ago.

Is any of that OK? No. It's just not surprising.

>>mronet+CP1
How much does $17k cost for a celebrity or wealthy person compared to someone making $75k-$100k? It would be interesting to see comparisons with an average celebrity or multi-millionaire, but it seems hard to define without getting into crazy wealth.

>>wil421+AS1
$17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

What do you mean by "cost"? They both have to pay the same price, one might have to spend less time to make that amount if that's your point, but that's kinda obvious.

>>tibors+kV1
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

At $100k, $17k after tax is maybe 30% of your income (and I don't mean disposable) for a year.

I think you would be hard pressed to find financially stable people in this income bracket who would consider this deal "affordable".

>>jstumm+AX1
At $100k per year many people can probably have whatever they want in life after a few years. Why not pop $17k on a watch? Of course this particular one is a bad choice, but buying a good watch could be considered an investment.

Probably affordable was a bit of a stretch, I meant that it's not out of the question of buying, like a $50k Rolex.